Lesane v. Byers et al

Filing 64

ORDER adopting 58 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks; granting 35 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claim for money damages, and that Plaintiff's request for declarato ry and injunctive relief is dismissed; granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion to Amend/Correct. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to Amend his Complaint, that request is denied; to the extent Plaintiff wishes to amend his Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, that request is granted and Plaintiff shall file the amended response by September 3, 2013. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 8/20/2013.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Michael Bernard Lesane, # 258515,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
William Byars, Dept. of Corrections
)
Director; Anthony Padula, Warden;
)
Major James Dean; Capt. A. Pinkney;
)
Lt. B. Durant; Sgt. Epps; Lt. Commandeer; )
Lt. Goodman; Officer Lighty, et al.;
)
Dr. Stein; Nurse Fulton; Nurse Scott;
)
Nurse Floyd; Nurse McCallaster,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 2:12-cv-00508-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) [Dkt. No. 58], filed on August 2, 2013, recommending that Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend [Dkt. No.44] be granted in part and denied in part. More specifically, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that to the extent Plaintiff wishes to Amend his Complaint, that
request should be denied; to the extent Plaintiff wishes to amend his Response in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, that request should be granted.

It is further

recommended that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 35] be granted as to
Plaintiff’s claim for money damages, and that Plaintiff’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief
be dismissed.
Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Report
sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter which the court incorporates
herein without a recitation.
1

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. “The court is not bound
by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination.” Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976)). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [Dkt. No. 28 at 29].
However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct
a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore,
failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal
from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States
v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record in this case, the
court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case and the
2

record in this case. The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 58]. For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend [Dkt. No.44] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent Plaintiff
wishes to Amend his Complaint, that request is DENIED; to the extent Plaintiff wishes to amend
his Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, that request is
GRANTED and Plaintiff shall file the amended response by September 3, 2013. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 35] is GRANTED as to
Plaintiff’s claim for money damages, and that Plaintiff’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief
is DISMISSED .
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
August 20, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

3